Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Dallaire

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V which is non-negotiable. No prejudice to recreation if suitable sources are found. Tyrenius (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Dallaire

This was an expired, deleted PROD that User:Redfive77, the major editor on the article, contested post-deletion. The PROD reasoning read "Self-promotional article that does not establish the subject's notability". The primary editor has countered with "Dr. Dallaire is a pioneer in human performance and has contributed much to the NASCAR and F1 communities over his long career." I am of the opinion that a broader airing of the article here would be beneficial. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article is poorly referenced with far too many external links peppering the promotional prose, this page on the Canadian Motorsports Hall of Fame web site provides clear evidence of notability. The article needs cleaning up, but shouldn't be deleted. -Amatulic (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject NASCAR has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did Jacques Dellaire receive "significant coverage" on that single webpage, as the notability guideline requires? And there are NO reliable sources for any of the other information in the article - not the birthdate, the not the occupation, not the clients, nothing. No newspaper or magazine has written an article about this person. How are we supposed to verify any of the information in the article? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strip down article to verified content from reliable sources. Has notability as a member of a major Hall of Fame. There should be plenty of other reliable sources (besides the HoF) since he has achieved that level of notability. All of his listed clients are major motorsports drivers. I would be happy to strip down the article if the closing admin would notify me. I don't want to do it yet to cloud this discussion. Royalbroil 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While all of the "clients" listed in the article appear to be notable, barring disclosure from either the purported clients or one of Dallaire's many businesses, we cannot actually verify the claim that they are or were his clients. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, provided we go through with Royalbroil's plan. matt91486 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is an autobiography--User:Redfive77 is Dallaire's Wikipedia account. The article has been flagged as spam by several users and Dallaire has sought to cover up any objections via anonymous editing (see Special:Contributions/74.99.198.36). Additionally, the article largely serves to promote Dallaire's consulting business. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some diffs/evidence/proof that Redfive77 is really Dallaire. How do know/relate 74.99.198.36 to Redfive77? Royalbroil 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will second that request. You can't simply sling around accusations like that without hard evidence, Daniel. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did y'all even bother to look at the article's history??? User:Redfive77 authored it to include trivial details that only Dallaire himself would know, or be motivated to include, including:

"He enjoys digital photography and working with computers, and is looking forward to learning more about video production in the coming years."
"Dr. Dallaire received his [...] Degree [...] and headed west later that summer"
"Throughout his [...] tenure [...] Dallaire assisted his academic advisors by serving as a technician."
"While the sport of motor racing represented the lion’s share of their early clientele [...]"

It also included unabashed self-promotional gems like:

"[T]he experience launched Dr. Dallaire down a path that would see him work directly with more than 500 high-performance racers from 35 countries and just about every form of racing on the planet… a passion that continues to this day.
"Over the past 30 years, Dr. Dallaire has been exposed to the application of a great many sport science and medicine strategies and techniques within the high-performance sport world and has been in an excellent position to monitor what has been effective and what has not. Over this time, he has refined his understanding of what is missing in the performance enhancement equation and continues to focus on addressing these perceived needs."

User:Redfive77 is also attempting to legitimize his consulting businesses by cross-linking his article and attempting (unsuccessfully) to create [[Category:Performance Consultants]], including the ersatz category in Bain & Company and Accenture,

As for the anonymous IP address, connect the dots. You've got a Toronto-based anonymous editor frantically cleaning up the article days after it's been flagged with {{advert}} and {{Cleanup-spam}} and these are the only anonymous edits made under this IP address. If that ain't quackin' like a duck and walkin' like a duck, then I'm at a loss to explain it.
He's also submitted his own promotional photo and left this nastygram when someone had the good sense to see that this article is an advertisement masquerading as an article.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he's in the Canadian Motorsports Hall of Fame, then he's notable, no debate. If the article has problems that's an editorial problem, not a delete problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. No debate? I thought that's what AfD was for. ~~The Canadian Motorsport Hall of Fame is not even notable enough for someone to have written an article about it (notice the redlink).~~ I thought notability was about sources, and this article has none. Yep, I just checked again, notability is still about sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Even their official web presence is less than impressive. Maybe I should open my own domain-specific "halls of fame" and start handing out "awards" to help business owners establish "notability" (for a fee, naturally). -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider that message to be a "nastygram". User:Redfive77 does appear to have at least some type of relationship/special knowledge of Dallaire's activies. I don't see how that necessarily means that the article needs to be deleted even if it is him editing the article. Should I make a subpage with only verified material to help further this discusssion? Royalbroil 22:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it's a stretch to posit that there is some individual who is not Dallaire writing blatantly promotional material for Dallaire and including specific details about his personal life and business contacts going back thirty years or more. Assuming such a person exists (distinct from Dallaire), he ought not be editing anything even remotely related to Dallaire under the WP:COI policy, "Close relationships" subclause. The trouble with keeping any reference to a spammer, verifiable or not, is that it encourages the spammer, IMHO. We ought not allow Wikipedia to devolve into a platform for free advertising. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Content matters are to be considered after the decision of whether or not to keep this article is rendered. The question at hand is and should be strictly (considering all the contentious bantering here) "should the article in any form be kept on Wikipedia?" COI issues and POV issues and personal trivia issues can all be dealt with editorially if the article is to be kept. Now let's get on with making the keep/don't keep decision, shall we? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.